The introduction of the .30 Super Carry highlighted that, whatever you think of the cartridge, it’s a weird time to introduce a new caliber. Material shortages, particularly primers, has caused a bit of an outcry over wasting materials that could have been used for cartridges people already like.

I am not a manufacturer, and my use of primers will not affect the market for popular calibers, so I feel free to do as I please. OK, I probably would anyway; they’re my primers after all. I was looking at a cartridge that flopped and thought, “Hmmm… I can expand on that failure with another cartridge no one will want!”

7mm Penna…

…also sometimes called 7 x 23mm. This cartridge is based on a shortened 5.7×28 cartridge with a .277″ bullet. Of course it’s not a 7mm, it’s a 6.8mm. Everyone lies about their caliber. Designed by Leonardo Penna as a lightweight, low-recoiling cartridge for high-capacity pistols. With a special pointed lightweight brass projectile travelling at around 1600 fps the round would have some ability to pierce soft body armor and perhaps have enhanced effectiveness, useful for law enforcement applications. The 49gr projectile would achieve 279 ft./lbs of energy. Another option was a 69gr projectile propelled top 1330 fps., producing 271 ft./lbs. The cartridge was firmly in the range of .32 H&R Magnum in power. Not a world-beater, but possibly useful.

My introduction to this cartridge came 10-11 years ago at SHOT Show, where I examined the pistol pictured above and spoke to a nice Italian gentleman whose name I did not catch. It’s a very flat, compact pistol and I was intrigued, but I didn’t dive too deep because there was so much to see at the show and my time was limited.

Fiocchi developed a version of the cartridge they called 7x23mm (‘version’ meaning they re-named it) with an eye on the competition market, specifically IPSC, where they felt its low recoil and high capacity would be seen as an asset. STI chambered some of their 1911-based competition pistols for this round, but it never caught on and was dropped from their line. The cartridge has since languished in the status of being a historical footnote, just one of many mildly interesting side-bars in the line of firearms progress.

I have a cunning plan!

I have sometimes thought there might be room in the world for a .25 ACP Super, something with little more size but significantly more speed. I’m probably wrong. It was these thoughts, in part, that led me to develop .251 TCR, a straight-walled rimmed .25 caliber pistol cartridge that exceeded .22 Magnum in power, but was centerfire and reloadable.

I was handicapped in developing a semi-auto cartridge by the lack of a parent case and the fact that converting a semi-auto pistol to another caliber is hard when you cannot simply buy a new barrel in the correct caliber. I’ve since done a semi-auto cartridge conversion and it’s less daunting to me now. Anyway musing on the 7mm Penna got me thinking and I was unsupervised at the time so I thought, ‘What if I shortened 5.7x28mm to 19mm and loaded it to 150-200 ft./lbs?’ The answer of course is that no one will know what it’s for or why I bothered, but it sounded like fun…

5.7 x 28mm brass is not hard to come by, but 6.8 mm bullets are all made for rifles and are too long and heavy for my cartridge. What to do? Contact my buddy Steve, who takes a perverse delight in making bullet-molds for obsolete cartridges, figuring out how to make new brass for cartridges long out of production and generally messing about with fun and useful stuff in the world of reloading. At some point in the relatively near future he’ll be giving me a call… We’re looking at three cavities that will produce bullets between 50 and 70 grains and we’ll see what works best.

Gee, That’s Swell. But What’s it For?

The target is to drive a 70gr. hard-cast lead bullet to 1100 fps and yielding 188 ft./lbs of energy, about average power for a .380 ACP. Penetration should be excellent; the bullets will have a high sectional density and enough energy.

Honestly I thought this was a kind of silly project, but .380 power with a few extra rounds in the magazine? That might actually be useful. Or picture it in a sub-sub-compact that is very, very flat. Hmm…

Let’s get real, though. Some weirdos like me will be interested, but commercially? Not going to happen. Still, it will be fun and interesting. I’ll be using my Maadi Helwan again, re-lined and re-chambered for the new cartridge. I’ll be set up as a straight-blowback again, and based on my work with my 7.8x19mm it ought to work just fine with some adjustments. I’ll have to modify the magazine and follower, but it’s nothing I haven’t done before.

So, off on another wild goose-chase. I’ll need a short section of 6.8mm barrel, some 5.7mm reloading dies and 5.7x28mm brass. I might have to enlist the aid of my welding0buddy Ernie again, but perhaps not… I have another cunning plan. Naturally I’ll keep you posted.

Stay Safe and take care,

Michael Tinker Pearce, 6 Febuary 2022

Don’t forget to check out the new Tinker Talks Guns Youtube channel! It’s early days, but I’m adding more content all the time. If you like what you see please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

This post is written for people who are not part of the firearms community to help them understand what we’re talking about when we discuss pistol braces, SBRs etc. We’re going to stay on-topic and not go down all of the many rabbit-holes surrounding this issue. Whether or not regulation, how much and what type is or is not Constitutional is a discussion for another time and place.

I tried to keep this as factual as possible without addressing the politics involved any more than absolutely necessary. Please respect my intentions and do the same.

So, Pistol Braces. We need to start at the beginning with “What is a ‘Pistol Brace?’” A pistol brace is a device to allow persons with only one functional hand to operate a large-format pistol like those based on the AR-15 platform for legitimate sporting and defensive purposes. All good so far.

History and Current Events

During the Great Depression criminals were employing Thompson sub-machine guns against each other, often firing indiscriminately and killing persons other than the intended targets and doing a lot of property damage. The public was alarmed by this, and politicians decided to try and do something about that. The regulation of this category of firearms was proposed. They would need to be registered with the ATF for the price of $200, a considerable sum in the midst of the Great Depression! People who already owned such weapons would be ‘grandfathered,’ in other words they would not need to pay the fee and would be allowed to register their weapons for free.

As frequently happens with lawmakers some of them jumped in and said ‘Why stop there? Let’s do this with hand-guns and sawed-off shotguns too!’ All of these weapons (machine-guns, pistols and sawed-off shotguns) were favored by criminals, after all. Then it was pointed out that if they did this then people could shorten rifles to make them concealable and circumvent the prohibition of handguns. OK, add those to the list too.

It is worth noting that shortened rifles were not yet a problem, but were included only in support of the ban on handguns. There was never much chance that the prohibition of handguns was going to fly and that was removed from the proposal, but SBRs were not removed even though they did not constitute a problem as yet.

So if a citizen desired to own an ‘NFA weapon’ like a short-barrel shotgun, machine-gun or SBR they would need to apply to the BATF, have a background check and pay $200. The $200 fee was intended to be prohibitive; it was a hell of a lot of money at the time. The wealthy would not be affected by this, of course, and many criminals were quite wealthy so it was always of questionable value.

Now we come back to Pistol Braces. Many of these designs can be used to shoulder the weapon like a rifle and use it like a rifle. People quickly realized that this exploited a loop-hole in the law, allowing them to obtain the effect of a short-barrel rifle without registering the weapon with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. While $200 is no longer prohibitively expensive this process often takes several months to a year, and hey, $200 is $200. People flocked to buy Pistol Braces, and it would not be unreasonable to assume they did so as a work-around to the NFA and had no intention of using these to fire their ‘pistols’ one-handed.

The BATF was conflicted about these and hemmed and hawed, issuing several opinions which sometimes contradicted each other. Finally last year they proposed a set of rules and allowed public comment. You can imagine how that went. They have now revealed that they will announce their changes of policy, and when and how they will be implemented, in August 2022.

The ATF released the new proposed rules last year, and it seems likely that they will adhere to that proposal. In effect it said that a brace that seemed to be made for use as a stock rather than to allow one-handed operation of the weapon, that contained features that appeared specifically included to increase the braces utility as a stock or which could not be actually used to allow one-handed operation of the weapon will be considered to be a stock rather than a pistol brace. This means that all weapons currently equipped with pistol braces that will be considered stocks under the new rules are in fact SBRs, and will need to be registered with the ATF under the terms of the NFA.

Allowing these weapons to be registered free of charge has been discussed; after all people bought them under the presumption that these were legal, and you can’t retroactively make those people into criminals. There will need to be a grace period to allow people to register these existing weapons. An expedited process to do so was also proposed and would likely be implemented.

It seems apparent that the ATF intends to close the loophole that allowed people to effectively own unregistered SBRs legally. While I personally believe that SBRs should not be controlled weapons under the NFA, because the reason they were included was removed before the bill was made law, the BATF does not have the authority or ability to remove them from the NFA. That requires that Congress act to amend the NFA and that is simply not going to happen. When there were opportunities to do so in the past it didn’t happen and there’s no good reason to believe it will in the future.

So it seems that in August I and others will need to either remove and destroy our pistol braces or register our weapons as SBRs, likely for free using an expedited process. I can’t say I am looking forward to this.

Why Would Someone Want an SBR?

This part represents my opinions on this question, and while I believe they reflect the feelings of many others you should take this with a grain of salt.

The Logical Case

A short-barrel rifle is easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. Being braced at the cheek and shoulder in addition to both hands it is inherently more stable than a pistol and recoil is managed better, allowing faster follow-up shots to be delivered accurately. This increases their effectiveness in the role of self-defense in the home, and makes using them in that role safer as fewer shots are likely to miss and potentially present a hazard to innocent persons in the vicinity.

Such weapons are generally based on platforms with a high standard magazine capacity, making it unlikely that a person will need to reload in the course of legitimate self-defense. As these instances often happen at night with a person having just woken this presents a significant advantage, as they might otherwise have difficulty reloading in a suitably prompt and effective matter.

SBRs are, by their nature, shorter and handier than full-size rifles, carbines or shotguns. This makes them easier to manage in the confined spaces of a typical home, and pistol-calibers versions are less likely to cause permanent hearing damage than rifle-caliber examples.

Lastly these weapons require less training to be employed effectively for the reasons stated above. They are also based on military systems that are designed to be simple, robust and easy to use.

Other Reasons

These weapons are used in some forms of competition but the biggest reason to have one, which may or may not eclipse the logical reasons to possess one listed above, is that they are fun and neat-o. They are also a hobby item.

OK, having such a potentially dangerous item ‘for fun’ might be considered frivolous. But people own fast cars for fun, and these cause a not insignificant amount of damage when misused. People drink alcohol for fun, and the damage that this does to themselves, others and society as a whole can be impressive and the cumulative negative effects are incalculable. More children are accidentally killed each year, on average, by swimming pools than all categories of firearms combined. Don’t even get me started on tobacco. If potential danger and negative effects on society is to be our yardstick we have a lot of work to do.

As a hobby item these have a lot going for them. They are fun to shoot. They are neat-o. They’re like Lego or Barbie for adults; there are endless accessories and many forms. Barrel length, sights, weapon-mount lights and targeting lasers, different grips, foregrips, different slings… the list goes on and on.

Then there’s their value as a conversation piece. You can discuss them with other hobbyists, online or in person. Which one to buy and why? Buy one or assemble it yourself from components? Which specific items did you equip it with, and why those ones? Why choose this sight over that one?

Oh, and you can take classes on how to use them, which bleeds over onto the hobby reasons and competition. It also opens a new can of worms as fodder for discussion. Who were you trained by? Why did you pick them? Which classes did you take? What did you learn?

Sorry, it’s Not Simple

People’s reasons for the things they do, the things they own and their beliefs are often complex. Someone that owns a braced pistol or SBR is unlikely to be a drooling psychopath, wanna-be Rambo, impending mass-killer or all that stuff un-educated people might think from watching mainstream sources. They’re just people. People concerned about security. People with hobbies. Most importantly they are people who own firearms ‘for all legitimate purposes, including self-defense in the home…’ which the Supreme Court has ruled is their right as acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States.

I hope this has clarified the issues surrounding braced pistols and SBRs for those who are not plugged in to the various firearms communities.

Stay safe and take care.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 29 January 2022

Despite being designed by John Browning .25ACP is the Rodney Dangerfield of cartridges; it can’t get no respect. The esteemed Mr. Browning designed it as a better, more reliable cartridge than .22 Long Rifle for use in small, semi-automatic pocket pistols.

It was, to say the least, a big hit and was wildly popular, in part because the guns were discreet, often inexpensive and people rarely have to actually shoot other people, so it’s shortcomings were not widely advertised.

So, how close does it come to .22 Long rifle? A quick look at the ballistics will tell you ‘not very,’ but that’s deceptive. The performance figures for .22 LR are generally taken from firing them out of rifles. The .25 ACP’s performance figures are typically from firing them through a 2″ barrel. So how do they compare when both are fired on equal terms? I happen to have some pocket pistols chambered in both cartridges, so let’s find out, shall we?

Representing the .25 ACP are my F.Dusek Duo with a 2″ barrel and my Colt Junior with a 2-1/4″ barrel. In the .22 LR corner is the S&W Escort weighing in at 2″ and the Robar Mercury sporting a 2-1/4″ barrel.

For both types of ammunition we have a standard-velocity round-nose bullet and a light high-velocity HP. In .25 ACP we have the bog-standard 50gr. FMC round-nose over 1.6 gr. of Unique (factory-load equivalent) and the 35gr. Speer Gold Dot JHP over 1.8gr. of Unique. For .22 Long Rifle we have some old Sears-brand standard velocity 40gr. LRN and CCI Stinger 32gr. LHP.

I set up the Chronograph and ran some numbers. Velocities are the average of three shots. I’m sure there’s some fancy way to lay out a table for the results, but I’m just going to list them.

.25 ACP

50gr. FMC-RN

2″ 831 fps. 77 ft./lbs

2-1/4″ 887 fps. 87 ft./lbs

35gr. GDHP

2″ 858 fps. 57 ft./lbs

2-1/4″ 912 fps. 65 ft./lbs.

.22 Long Rifle

40gr. Sears RNL

2″ 778 fps. 54 ft./lbs

2-1/4″ 789 fps. 55 ft./lbs

32gr Stinger LHP

2″ 953 fps. 65 ft./lbs

2-1/4″ 958 fps. 65 ft./lbs

So I have to say it does a pretty fair job duplicating the performance of .22 LR from a 2″ barrel. Yes, velocities can vary from gun to gun and that sort of thing, but it’s pretty clear they are in the same ballpark. This is especially true if you remember that when the .25 was invented all .22 LR was what we now call ‘standard velocity.’

It seems like everyone on the internet has a story about how they shot a .25 at something wooden and it either barely stuck in of bounced off. Given those stories I used sections of Douglas Fir 2×4 as my backstop. The 50gr. FMC blew through one section of 2×4 every time and embedded itself in the one behind. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t ever been deflected by wood, but clearly it’s not the normal result. The hollow-points did not make it through the 2×4, though they came close. The .25 ACP hollow-points did not expand in the wood, the Stingers did. The .22 RNL also did not make it through the first 2×4, penetrating about 3/4″.

So what does it all prove? Not much except that JMB did a good job reproducing .22 LR performance in small handguns. Not that surprising. Oh, and that if someone is shooting at you with a tiny pistol hiding behind 2x4s might save your ass.

I’m recasting my gel block, and tomorrow I’ll be doing some FBI-protocol testing with these guns and bullets. It will be interesting to see how they compare!

In the meantime stay safe and take care.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 24 January 2022

Don’t forget to check out the new Tinker Talks Guns Youtube channel! It’s early days, but I’m adding more content all the time. If you like what you see please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.